Anti-satellite weapon test?, Is this true? |
Anti-satellite weapon test?, Is this true? |
Jan 19 2007, 02:39 PM
Post
#1
|
|
Junior Member Group: Members Posts: 96 Joined: 20-September 06 From: Hanoi, Vietnam Member No.: 1164 |
According to this link, China fired a missile to destroy an orbiting weather satellite last week: http://www.spacewar.com/reports/China_Tras...e_Test_999.html
I am curios about what kind of projectile could be used? A "smart" one with on board guidance system or just a dumb one? How close did the "killer satellite" came to the target? Does anybody have an idea? |
|
|
Jan 22 2007, 07:34 PM
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 688 Joined: 20-April 05 From: Sweden Member No.: 273 |
Actually a satellite in LEO is not a particularly challenging target. Its position and trajectory is known in advance and it is usually a non-maneuvring target. Also it usually has a nice big cross-section in both the radar, IR and visual band and operates in a very uncluttered environment.
All that is needed is a reasonably precise suborbital rocket and a suitable warhead. However I doubt that the "ball-bearing/sand" solution is cost effective. Unless You release quite close to the target they would probably disperse too thinly to ensure a kill. It would probably be better to use a homing warhead with a proximity fuse. Anybody having the technology for the carrier rocket should be able to handle the guidance system and the warhead too. tty |
|
|
Jan 22 2007, 08:18 PM
Post
#3
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 2488 Joined: 17-April 05 From: Glasgow, Scotland, UK Member No.: 239 |
It would probably be better to use a homing warhead with a proximity fuse. Anybody having the technology for the carrier rocket should be able to handle the guidance system and the warhead too. tty It's a tad more difficult than it looks. Most aircraft missile systems don't use thrust to control attitude, but instead rely on aerodynamic forces. An exoatmospheric vehicle has to be precisely stabilised, and because it has to actively hunt down a target then spinning probably won't do. You're looking at 3-axis attitude control, plus an ability to change direction at very short notice. Some of the Star Wars kinetic kill vehicles not only were 3-axis stabilised, but also spun to deploy arms at the last moment and then also disintegrated to provide further frontal area. All this has to be arranged in a space of seconds, with space-hardened computers. All in all, it's a very tough call, and the US has done it only a very few times (and sometimes by moving the goalposts after the event). China's success is a major milestone, and speaks highly of their space technology. Bob Shaw -------------------- Remember: Time Flies like the wind - but Fruit Flies like bananas!
|
|
|
Jan 22 2007, 08:46 PM
Post
#4
|
|
Dublin Correspondent Group: Admin Posts: 1799 Joined: 28-March 05 From: Celbridge, Ireland Member No.: 220 |
So with a bit of luck they might now consider that they have successfully shown all interested parties that they are well in contention in LEO and that they now need to demonstrate some serious long range remote capability - expect Chinese Moon, Mars and outer planets missions to follow shortly.
So it's time to go and learn Chinese folks so we can stay on top of CNSA's PR department. (Just looking for the bright side since this is my 1000'th post. ) |
|
|
Jan 23 2007, 11:31 AM
Post
#5
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 2488 Joined: 17-April 05 From: Glasgow, Scotland, UK Member No.: 239 |
(Just looking for the bright side since this is my 1000'th post. ) 1,000? Pah! Amateurs, don't know what things are coming to, mumble, why in my day, I remember back in '05... Keep up the good work! Bob Shaw -------------------- Remember: Time Flies like the wind - but Fruit Flies like bananas!
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 21st June 2024 - 02:37 PM |
RULES AND GUIDELINES Please read the Forum Rules and Guidelines before posting. IMAGE COPYRIGHT |
OPINIONS AND MODERATION Opinions expressed on UnmannedSpaceflight.com are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of UnmannedSpaceflight.com or The Planetary Society. The all-volunteer UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderation team is wholly independent of The Planetary Society. The Planetary Society has no influence over decisions made by the UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderators. |
SUPPORT THE FORUM Unmannedspaceflight.com is funded by the Planetary Society. Please consider supporting our work and many other projects by donating to the Society or becoming a member. |